"While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise"
They make claims about significant data supporting thus, but don't provide it.
"And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry."
This doesn't logically follow. One could make lobbying reforms to curtail the problems associated with that while still allowing transparency for the citizens.
"This is because a republic works in much the same way as one might hire a plumber, roofer, surgeon or a mechanic. Indeed, when citizens choose to hire doctors or mechanics, the evidence is pretty clear that even when it comes to possible life threatening outcomes, few of us choose to become as informed as we likely should."
People still need to be vigilant and I formed when dealing with these professions so they don't get ripped off. People should be educating themselves enough to ask intelligent medical questions. People should seek second opinions. People should educate themselves to know the terminology and basic function of a car so they aren't getting ripped off by a mechanic. To People who view the whole situation and know the details, their example is actually an argument against the point they are making.
"By publishing just the final floor votes, the active citizens can still correlate votes to candidates, but by closing the doors of committees, the lobbyists and other extreme demanders are kept in check."
How did they reach this conclusion that lobbyists would be kept in check? Wouldn't lobbyists still be able to see the floor votes? I see no reason would affect the ability of lobbyists to continue their influence.
Most of the rest of the content are quotes, fluff, and supposition about inequality being related to a lack of secrecy. There's no objective data or links to studies.